Page images
PDF
EPUB

1,838,169; Fremont, 1,841,264; Fillmore, 874,534. Mr. Buchanan's plurality in Illinois was 9,159; Fremont's vote in Illinois was 96,189, and Fillmore's 57,444. But although Illinois cast her electoral vote for Buchanan, Wm. A. Richardson, the Democratic candidate for Governor, was beaten by Wm. H. Bissell, the Republican candidate, by a majority of 4,697. Mr. Bissell was an able and accomplished gentleman, who had won popular fame as a soldier in the war with Mexico, and had represented the Belleville district in the Thirty-first, Thirty-second and Thirty-third Congresses.

With Mr. Bissell, there were elected John Wood, Lieutenant Governor; O. M. Hatch, Secretary of State; Jesse K. Dubois, Auditor of Public Accounts; James Miller, Treasurer, and Wm. H. Powell, Superintendent of Public Instruction. This was the first time in the history of Illinois that any person other than a Democrat had been chosen to fill a State office. Several times prior to this the Clay men or Whigs had taken up a Jackson man or Democrat and voted for him for Governor, against the person thought to be the favorite candidate of the leading men of the dominant party, notably among whom was John Reynolds, in 1830, who was elected over Wm. Kinney, then Lieutenant Governor. The election of Joseph Duncan in 1834 was another instance-Kinney being again a candidate. (See Ford's History.) Party lines between the Democrats and Whigs were not radically drawn in this State until about 1836, but the Whig party was always in a hopeless minority. The nearest the Whig party ever came to carrying the State was in the campaign between Harrison and Van Buren. Harrison received 45,537 votes and Van Buren 47,476. Of the formation of the Republican party we shall speak more at length in the succeeding chapter.

Under Mr. Buchanan's administration the slave power became more and more aggressive. In fact, the slave power had dictated and dominated the legislation from the first Congress to the administration of Buchanan, in Whig as well as in Democratic administrations; and in 1852, when the Whig and Democratic parties adopted, in National conventions, platforms which were identical on the slavery question, then it was that that question seemed to absorb all others in the National legislature. The development of the country, the progress and happiness of its people, were lost sight of. Laws repugnant to the character and intelligence of the people of the free States had been passed from time to time, under the impudent threat of Southern senators and representatives that if they were not passed the South would dissolve the Union. But the most obnoxious and offensive measure was the Fugitive Slave Law, which compelled the citizens of the free States to turn out at the will or command of the United States marshals to aid in the arrest or return of slaves escaping from their masters into free territory.

And next to this was the assault upon Charles Sumner, a United States senator from the commonwealth of Massachusetts. He had been brutally and murderously assaulted in open day in the United States Senate by Preston L. Brooks, a representative from South Carolina, for simply expressing his political opinions in debate, and although Brooks was expelled from that body, his constituents promptly re-elected him, as an indorsement of the brutal act.

Not only was the legislation of the National government in the interest of slavery, but the Supreme Court was made to bow to the demands of the power behind it. We refer to the Dred Scott decision. This was rendered in December, 1856, in a case wherein a colored man, whose name was Dred Scott, had been taken, together with his wife and

two daughters, by his master, John F. A. Sanford, a resident of the State of Missouri, to Rock Island, Illinois, to reside. Illinois being a free State, these persons, therefore, became free the moment they were landed on her soil with the intention to remain as residents.

On the return of Sanford with Scott and his family to Missouri, Scott sued in the State court for his freedom, and believing that few of our readers will be able to call to mind the true character of this cause, and that they will be interested in knowing the full significance of the decision, we print the substance of it, as reported by Benjamin C. Howard, the official reporter. The case is thus stated by him in the published decisions of that court:

"This case was brought up, by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Missouri. It was an action vi et armis, instituted in the circuit court by Scott against Sanford. Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was brought by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county (State court), where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State, the judgment below was reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was continued to await the decision of the case now in question. The declaration of Scott contained three counts: one that Sanford had assaulted the plaintiff; one that he had assaulted Harriet Scott, his wife, and one that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie, his children."

The close of the syllabus of the case, as reported in 19th Howard, and which gives the substance of the longest and most interesting opinion ever rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, is as follows:

"The plaintiff himself acquired no title to freedom by being taken by his owner to Rock Island in Illinois, and brought back to Missouri. This court has heretofore decided that the status or condition of a person of African descent depended on the laws of the State in which he resided. It has been settled by the decisions by the highest. court in Missouri, that by the laws of that State a slave

does not become entitled to his freedom where the owner takes him to reside in a State where slavery is not permitted, and afterwards brings him back to Missouri.

"Conclusion: It follows that it is apparent upon the record that the court below erred in its judgment in the plea in abatement, and also erred in giving judgment for the defendant when the exception shows that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the United States. And as the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction either in the case stated in the plea in abatement, or in the case stated in the exception, its judgment in favor of the defendant is erroneous and must be reversed."

At that time the Supreme Court of the United States was composed of Chief Justice Taney, Justices Nelson, Grier, Danniel, Campbell, Catron, Wayne, McLean, and Curtis. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion, and Justices McLean and Curtis were the only members of the court who dissented.

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted slavery within the territory south of parallel 36° 30′, and which opened up all the Territories to the spread of slavery, the brutal attempt to stifle free speech in the Senate of the United States, the extraordinary decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, and the effort of President Buchanan to force Kansas into the Union with a constitution which recognized slavery, were so palpably wrong in themselves, that the great body of the people in the North-Free Soilers, Native Americans, Whigs and Democrats-were one in their denunciation of the aggressive steps of the slave power, and they stood ready with their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, to do that which would preserve the Government and the Union as they had been handed down to them by Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and all the patriot-fathers.

In that long and exciting debate in Congress over the legislation relating to the admission of Kansas into the Union, Stephen A. Douglas was the only Democratic

Senator, if we except George E. Pugh, of Ohio, who had the moral courage to oppose Buchanan's policy, and to Douglas' good name and great fame be it said he opposed it with manly courage, and with all the ability of his master mind, and because of this he was ostracised by the followers of the Administration, and its immense patronage was freely used in Illinois with the hope of destroying his power in his own State.

Such was the condition of National politics when we commence our history of the politics and politicians of Illinois, since which time the politics of Illinois have been the politics of the Nation.

CHAPTER II.

SLAVERY AGITATION.

Why a New Party was Necessary-Missouri Compromise of 1820-Compromise Measures of 1850-Repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820— Douglas Denied the Right of Free Speech in Chicago-Organization of the Republican Party-Three Branches of the Government Pro-SlaveryGrowth of the Republican Party-Caucus at Williamsville-First Republican Convention at Cairo-First Republican Caucus at Metropolis.

WHY A NEW PARTY WAS NECESSARY.

The Republican party, which has had almost complete control of the governments of the State and Nation since 1861, was permanently organized in this State at Bloomington, May 29, 1856. Prior to that time the Democratic party had held, with the exception of a few brief intervals, the complete control of the government of the Nation since the formation of parties; and while the Whig party had maintained an organization in the State from 1836

« PreviousContinue »